Upload
erica-henderson
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Protective Action Guides for Radiological/Nuclear Incidents
November 1, 2005
Craig Conklin
Department of Homeland Security
2Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Background
TOPOFF 2 Highlighted Lack of Consensus on Clean-up Levels
Radiological Dispersal Devices (RDD) and Improvised Nuclear Devices (IND) Preparedness Working Group Takes Lead to Resolve Clean-up Issue
Efforts Coordinated With Office of Science and Technology Policy Homeland Security Council
3Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Consequence Management Subgroup
Department of Homeland Security
Environmental Protection Agency
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Department of Energy
Department of Defense
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Centers for Disease Control
4Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Sources of Guidance
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
International Commission on Radiological Protection
International Atomic Energy Agency
Health Physics Society
American Nuclear Society
State Programs
Academia
5Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Existing Federal Guidance
Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents
Accidental Radioactive Contamination of Human Food and Animal Feeds: Recommendations for State and Local Agencies
Potassium Iodide as a Thyroid Blocking Agent in Radiation Emergencies
6Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Existing Protective Action Guides
Early Phase Sheltering Evacuation Administration of Potassium Iodide
Intermediate Phase Relocation Food and Water Interdiction
Late Phase Site Restoration and Clean-up
7Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
PAG Principles
Prevent Acute Effects
Reduce the Risk of Chronic Effects
Require Optimization to Balance Protection With Other Important Factors
Ensure That Actions Taken Result in More Benefit Than Harm
8Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Protective Action Guides (PAGs)
Are NOT Absolute Standards
DO NOT Define “Safe” or “Unsafe” Levels of Exposure or Contamination
DO Represent Approximate Levels at Which the Protective Actions Are Justified
DO Provide Flexibility to Be More or Less Restrictive Based on the Unique Characteristics of the Incident and Local Considerations
9Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Guidance Objectives
Aid Decision Makers in Protecting The Public
First Responders
Other Emergency Workers
Balance Social and Economic Impacts
Timely Return to Normalcy Critical for Minimizing Adverse Impacts
10Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
PAGs for RDDs and INDs Limit Responder Exposure – 5 rem (or greater)
Sheltering – 1-5 rems
Evacuation – 1-5 rems
Administration of KI – FDA Guidance
Relocation – 2 rems 1st year, 500 mrem/yr in subsequent years
Food Interdiction – 500 mrem/yr
Drinking Water – 500 mrem/yr (EPA basis under development)
Clean-up - Optimization
11Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Operational Guides Access Controls During Emergency Response
Operations
Relocation Areas
Critical Infrastructure Utilization in Relocation Areas
Temporary Access to Relocation Areas for Essential Personnel
Transportation and Access Routes
Property Control for Release of Property to Non-impacted Areas
12Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Clean-up/Recovery Strategy
Due to Extreme Range of Potential Impacts Workgroup Determined That a Strict Numerical Approach Was Not Useful
Site-specific Remediation and Recovery Strategies Should Be Developed Using Principals of Optimization
Must Include Appropriate Stakeholders in Decision Making Process
13Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Optimization Flexible Process for
Determining Societal Objectives
Developing and Evaluating Options
Selecting the Most Acceptable Option
Public Health and Welfare
Public Acceptability
Costs and Resource Availability
Technical Feasibility
Long-term Effectiveness
Projected Land Usage
Size of Impacted Area
Type of Contamination
14Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Process Overview
Goals Transparency
Inclusiveness
Effectiveness
Key Characteristics Flexibility
Scalability
Iterative
15Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Process Implementation
Takes Place At/Near Incident Location
Utilizes Following Teams/Work Groups Decision Making Team (DMT)
Recovery Management Team (RMT)
Stakeholder Working Group (SWG)
Technical Working Group (TWG)
Federal, State and Local Representation
16Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Decision Making Team
Membership Secretary of Department of Homeland Security
Governor of Affected State
Local Mayor, County Executive, Etc.
Responsibilities Make Final Clean-up Decision(s)
Commit Funding and Resources
Resolve Difficult Issues or Elevate Them to the President
17Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Recovery Management Team
Membership Selected by the Decision Making Team DHS Representative State and Local Officials Federal/state Lead Technical Agency Co-chaired by State and DHS Official
Responsibilities Provide Oversight and Guidance Ensure Effective Wok Group Interaction Ensure Effective Community Involvement Prioritize Options for the Decision Making Team
18Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Stakeholder Working Group (SWG)
Membership Selected by Recovery Management Team
Federal, State, Local and Tribal Representatives
Non-government Organizations
Exact Selection and Balance Is Incident Specific
Co-chaired by State or Local and DHS Official
Responsibilities Represent Local Needs and Desires
Provide Input on Site Restoration and Proposed Clean-up Options
19Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Technical Working Group (TWG)
Membership Selected by Recovery Management Team Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Subject Matter Experts Co-chaired by State and Federal Lead Technical Agencies
Responsibilities Provide Expert Input on Economic and Technical Issues Consider Input From Stakeholder Working Group Review Analyses Performed by Lead Technical Agencies Provide Reports to Recovery Management Team
20Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Recovery Process
TWG Develops Options Based on SWG Input
TWG Briefs RMT and SWG on Options’ Feasibility, Costs, Strengths and Weaknesses
TWG Forwards Sound, Reasonable and Balanced Recommendation(s) to RMT
RMT Transmits Recommendation(s) to the Decision Making Team for Final Action
21Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Recovery Process (cont)
Decision Making Team Informs Public Of Process, Recommendations Analyzed And Final Decision; Seeks Public Comment
Public Comments Are Considered And Incorporated As Appropriate
Final Decision Is Then Implemented
Effectiveness Of Operations Continually Evaluated
22Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Future Activities
Scheduled to be Published in Federal Register
60-day Public Comment Period
Publish Final Guidance in Late 2006
23Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Closing Statements
Primary Goal Is Provide a Flexible Approach for Responding to RDD/IND Incidents
This Is Not a Rejection of Other Cleanup Methodologies or Approaches
This Guidance Is Not Intended to Be Used for Cleanups Conducted Under Other Programs
24Craig Conklin November 1, 2005
Questions?